1 2025:CGHC:49091 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6171 of 2025 Order reserved on 30/06/2025 Order delivered on 24/09/2025 1 - Jay Singh Bhardwaj S/o Late Shri Lilar Singh Bhardwaj Aged About 62 Years Incharge Block Education Officer, Block Doundi District Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Avar Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Public Instruction Department, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Commissioner Durg Division, Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal C.A.V. Order 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 11-06-2025, issued by the Respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner’s services has been suspended, and he prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition:- VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.24 19:06:13 +0530 2 “(i) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ or writs for quashing/set aside the order dated 11.06.25 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no.3, Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg (C.G.) (ii) Any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer and is presently working as the In- Charge Block Education Officer and was posted at Daundi, District Balod. On 11-06-2025, the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, has suspended the petitioner on the allegation that he committed misconduct in rationalization process of teachers, which is against Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965. He would further submit that the order dated 11-06-2025 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, is without authority as the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Director, Public Instructions/Secretary, School Education Department. It is also submitted that the suspension order does not contemplate any departmental inquiry, which is a violation of Rule 9(1)(a) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and therefore, the suspension order itself is a nullity. Hence, the impugned order of suspension is liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent/State would oppose and submits that, against the suspension order, the petitioner has the alternative remedy of appeal as provided under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 1966. He would also submit that the Commissioner is the 3 competent authority to take disciplinary action against the Lecturer/Block Education Officer, which has been upheld in the order passed by Hon’ble Division bench of this Court in W.A. No. 531/2025, order dated 28-07-2025 (parties Mansingh Bhardwaj v. State of Chhattisgarh) and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. He would also submit that the contemplation of the departmental inquiry is a process ahead of the suspension and procedural. Even if the contemplation is not disclosed in express words, it seems that the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted in the departmental inquiry, and therefore, it may not affect the suspension order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed to the petition. 5. The main grievance raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the Commissioner, Durg, not being the appointing authority of the petitioner, cannot pass the impugned order of suspension. It is submitted that such an action could only have been taken by the competent authority, strictly in accordance with law. In this regard, reliance is placed on Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966, which stipulates that a Government servant may be placed under suspension by the appointing authority, or by any authority to which it is subordinate, or by the disciplinary authority, or by any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor, either by a general or special order. For ready reference, Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1966 is reproduced hereinbelow:- 4 “9 (1). The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry of trial : [Provided that a Government servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed against him:] [Inserted by Notification No. C-6-2-796-3-(I), dated 03-08-1996.] Provided further that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made.” 6. It is evident that the substantive post of the appellant is that of Lecturer, and he has been discharging duties as In-Charge Block Education Officer, Daundi, District Balod, in compliance with the order passed by respondent No. 1. As per the applicable rules, the appointing authority of the appellant is the Secretary, School Education Department. By notification dated 04.08.2008, the powers of the appointing authority were delegated to the Divisional Commissioner. Thus, the order of suspension is well within the competence of the Divisional Commissioner, Durg. 7. With respect to the second ground raised by the petitioner in the writ petition that there should be contemplation of departmental inquiry 5 proceeding in the suspension order, it is revealed from the impugned suspension order that the same does not bear with the contemplation of a departmental inquiry, which amounts to a violation of Rule 9(1)(a) of the Rules of 1966. The order was passed without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing or issuance of a show-cause notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 8. Additionally, the impugned suspension order does not specify that it was issued in contemplation of any departmental proceedings, which amounts to a violation of Rule 9(1)(a) of the Rules of 1966. The order was passed without affording the appellant any opportunity of hearing or issuance of a show-cause notice, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 9. In view of the facts of the present case, and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned suspension order dated 11-06-2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed. 10. However, the respondent No. 3 shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order on the issue, in accordance with the law, if so advised. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved